Here are a bunch of questions written to PW on February 15, 2011 and handed in at a Stormwater Aesthetics meeting to their representative engineer, Shannon Wilbur.
How many of these questions were addressed by Public Works? It would be good to compile follow-through documentation on this.
“Thousand Questions” re: Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility
1) If, according to BAS, wetlands shouldn’t be used for stormwater treatment facilities if there’s any chance of negatively impacting groundwater in sensitive aquifers, how does this plan prevent groundwater or potable water pollution?
2) If this wetland, as-is, can handle normal seasonal runoff (and we’ve had one of the wettest winters on record), isn’t there a way to divert stormwater runoff someplace near the wetlland (ie into a culvert or a pond off-site) that could be slowly absorbed back into the ground rather than into Fishing Bay, and leave the wetland as-is except for canary grass removal and a little gentle grading and splitting of flow? (Michael B’s idea from what he observed while walking the wetland several times.)
3) Regarding future piping from Fern Street and any other piping to this facility being planned: everything I’ve read so far says that stormwater should be diverted away from wetlands, not into them. Would you please point me to science that shares the opposite view?
4) When planning this stormwater treatment facility, how much was future buildout considered? If this connects to future projects, have those been mapped out? What are the piping and other treatment facilities that will tie into this? How can we see those in connection and relation to this first step?
5) How will this facility affect abutting wetlands? What will happen to them as they get filled and more impervious surfaces put into them, more alluvial soils displaced, and more chopping up of the Eastsound Swale into smaller and smaller separated pieces?
6) Is anything at all being done to protect the rest of Eastsound Swale from having to take stormwater and thus we’d lose more tree habitat? (Most of the willows were unfortunately already cut down along lovers land and Enchanted Forest Road.)
7) Since science seems to point to natural functioning wetlands being always preferable over engineered wetlands, I’m wondering how we got to this plan. Is it just that we had no other choice, based on science and geography?
8) Mindy seemed to think that Amanda drew up an alternate plan that was less radical than this one and more natural than engineered. Is that plan available for public perusal?
9) Wetlands, even drained and filled, can be restored if the alluvial soils are left intact. (EPA). What will happen to the alluvial soil? If removed, why, and why not returned to the site? There are some grants for restoration. Should we explore that angle for the rest of the impacted parts of the Swale?
10) Many of the BAS documents on stormwater and wetlands that I read said that detention and retention ponds are being over-used and that the latest BAS studies show that they are doing more harm to wetlands than good, and that ponds can ruin a wetland's function within 20 years due to various factors. Was this considered in the engineering? If there is science disproving this, please point me to those documents, because I’m not finding them.
11) Not one engineered wetland I’ve seen (in the many docs I studied) showed an engineered wetland planted with trees. They all seem to be grassland and marshland. Why is it that these are chosen over tree filtration systems. Can’t trees be planted that would thrive in wet conditions and grow, like the island willows we once had everywhere and have all been destroyed for development? If trees keep wetland life warmer in winter and cooler in summer due to shading and protection, this destroys the ecological balance of that area.
12) I read in the scientific documents that if a potential site’s climate is dry in summer for more than two months, (as the San Juans are), a pond system wetland is not a good pick because the ponds should not be allowed to dry out and the chance of pollutant spread was greater if heavy rains followed a dry summer. Was this considered? How will that be handled? What will be done to provide shade and organic refuse for the ponds, since tree cover will no longer shade the water?
13) making new “edges” (from cutting down trees and excavation) encourages noxious weed proliferation near and into the wetlands (i.e. hawthorn trees replace more desirable willows, blackberries replace nootka rose). Herbaceous perennials and annuals are taken over by invasive plants such as canary reed grass. How will the existing reed canary grass problem be addressed? Blackberry? Edge buffers for the new edges created? Have you considered the rabbit problem in Eastsound?
14) My readings of wetland science suggest that sun, although it can be good for “cleaning” ponds (although I doubt it gets hot enough here), changes the temperature, and that many fish and amphibians are negatively impacted (fatally) by temperature changes of even a few degrees. We lost most of our salamander and frog population due to Enchanted Forest Road being put on top of the swale right over their breeding grounds. What is being done by the County and Public Works to protect the rest of what’s left, and are you working with the Army Corps of Engineers, state DOE, fish and wildlife, and the EPA to protect these critical areas aquifers?
15) Who will maintain the wetland facility after major soil disturbance? Who will regularly maintain and weed-out the inevitable thistle, teasel, and other noxious weeds that follow? Based on the county’s maintenance of other projects due to personnel shortages, I do not feel hopeful that this facility will be properly maintained and monitored.
16) What will major tree removal do to songbird, bat, and amphibian insect catchers in terms of foraging, mating, and breeding sites, which we’re already losing fast or have lost within the UGA? Can we afford to lose any more of their habitat?
17) Since all that I have read says that tree roots have great filtering capabilities, especially conifers, are there any examples of “treed” natural wetlands used as stormwater treatment facilities? If so, would you direct me to links or documents?
18) What can possibly replace trees, aesthetically, for the kind of height and natural backdrop that we’re used to seeing behind the band shell? The band shell was built to be part of an environment which included trees for backdrop. Loss of trees will destroy the scale and scope of the design. Can we plant pines or some other type of small or narrow conifers along the Eastern edge of the wetland to shield our view and help keep late afternoon sun out of our eyes when viewing concerts? (the trees did this for us late afternoon and early evening)
19) What will be done to keep people from walking all over the wetland area if the wetland dries up in summer, which seems probable?
20) What will keep the ponds from becoming mosquito breeding grounds and who will maintain weeds around them? Will the ponds contain aquatic plants?
21) If soil is being excavated out two feet deep or more, aren’t we infiltrating the groundwater and aquifer supply?
22) What is the life (in years) of this kind of facility before it needs to be “re-engineered?”
23) Is a 60 foot long, ten foot wide concrete ramp really necessary to clean the north pond? Can the pond be moved East to mitigate that, or can some temporary metal mesh type material be used to roll out and put down atop a much more minimal concrete structure (perhaps even mostly underwater) when the excavator or backhoe needs to clean the pond, and then rolled back up?
24) How often will the pond need to be cleaned?
25) Has anyone heard of an exciting new thing in possible pollutant cleaning of wetlands – mycology? There has been good success with mycology in forest restoration. Results have been promising in studying mushrooms’ ability to absorb and “eat” pollutants and when tested, the mushrooms are shown to be “clean.” Can we explore this as a potential treatment for pollutants? See Paul Stamets How Mushrooms Can Save the World. Mr. Stamets is a highly sought expert on this subject and how mycology is helping stormwater pollutant absorption.
26) What will be done about the potential litter problem that, so far, is kept to a minimum by tree and shrub buffers and mostly impenetrable wetlands, but is a problem in existing trails? Who will regularly clean up the litter?
27) Is it possible that rather than put the east-west trail right next to the pond, it can go more on the perimeter of the wetland and thus have less foot traffic disturbance of the wetland?
28) How do rain gardens tie in with this facility plan and stormwater in general? How will you give the public incentive to utilize them?
29) What is being planned in terms of culverts and aprons in Eastsound?
30) I would hope that any tree removal/upheaval NOT be done in nesting season and until fledglings have flown.
31) Why was this project chosen here, when the bulk of pollutants are running down Main Street in the ditches and directly polluting Fishing Bay through stormwater outflow pipes?
32) What is being done to consider futurity, 20 years out? 50 years out? How does this project help with that? How many more functioning wetlands will be destroyed to make engineered stormwater treatment facilities, which are not suggested for existing functioning wetlands, according to state and federal laws and the Clean Water Act?
Kim’s Input- Went to the constructed wetland plan workshop today
I would like to know more re:>
~ toxics testing and sediment dredge schedule
~out flow pipe monitoring plan- scouring
~buffering the existing true adjacent wetland and
~risks involved in damage to this preexisting adjacent healthy wetland by altering upstream w/ constructed wetlands
~and when i look closely i question if this small tx site is able to handle the volume present, much less the increase load that comes w/ future development, plus increased impervious surface = what mechanisms are in place to handle overflow?
~I would like public to be aware of the presence of the creatures in the bay where this water is being pumped out.
~ Please go to the beach watchers website and republish photos and information from our data on surfactants
Some documents I requested may be able to answer the drainage and runoff questions interspersed throughout.
Thanks for considering these questions, thoughts, ideas, and concerns. Please understand that Eastsound is home to many of us, and we love and want to protect it. I remember the Swale when it was far more diverse in functionality, vegetation and wildlife, and don’t want to keep losing it piecemeal until it’s so destroyed it can be reclassified to “unregulated” and finished off by rampant and poorly planned development.
Sincerely, Sadie Bailey – Eastsound resident
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility - and some thoughts after the final Public Works "Open House"
First of all, my deepest apologies to all of the non-human the inhabitants of the mixed-forest Ecosystem dwelling on the Mount Property; tree beings, plant beings, birds, frogs, salamanders, bats, bees, and other creatures - for not following through and insisting that public Works give us a much better publicized open house after Mid- July. I dropped the ball. Secondly, equally heartfelt apologies to the Citizens who don't yet know what will hit them, especially the citizens of the UGA and the people who worked hard at the Stormwater Facility Aesthetics meetings. No excuses will cut it, but burnout and exhaustion and a broken heart all contributed to the ball drop. This was NOT the time to drop the ball! I feel I let you all down. I let myself down, and the few people who wanted to stop this project or stall it until sanity prevailed. I wish I could have done more for you all instead of retreating. I had to walk away. I wish I didn't have to, could have managed it. This is a set of questions I drafted in June, and apparently never sent to the Aesthetics Committee for feedback and brainstorming. I want it here for posterity.
***********************
email from June 17, 2011
Hello.
I want to thank everyone on the Aesthetics Committee and concerned citizens for their input on the Mount Property Stormwater Facility. I apologize for not contacting Shannon about another open house. I left the ball in her court with the last email I sent her, which was unwise. Frankly, I dropped the ball. If that open house was going to happen, I should have kept at her to do it. I didn't. Had to walk away. I'm sorry, and feel that I let us all down. Still having a very hard time with this project's immanence, and still feel upset that they're going through with this plan. But if not for you people, it would have been worse - so thank you for your time, efforts, and energy. It was a pleasure to watch you all work together and brainstorm your good ideas and intelligent questions and concerns and make the best of a less than ideal situation.
For what it's worth, I'd still like to hear your input on the process if you feel like taking the time; especially any questions you have that are still unresolved, any new questions or concerns. Below is the original draft of concerns to present to your perusal, the public, and PW before the open house that never followed. Thanks again.
Sadie
***********************
Written June 17
Public Works has made some concessions, thanks to good input from Michael and Fred. But from what Shannon said yesterday, I have questions and maybe some of you do too. I would like to compile a list of questions we already asked, questions still to ask, and any answers you got and how satisfied or concerned you are with the answers you got.
The biggies that stand out for me are maintenance and monitoring,. PW consistently seems to run out of money when a big project is done, and they don't seem to factor-in operational, maintenance, suppliy, or monitoring costs. A look at their projects would point to the fact that there might be little to no maintenance and a bigger load on the workers, and this is a concern.
What will happen to the standing trees without tree support in an extreme wind tunnel, and the visual shock of no taller greenery in places where people are used to seeing it? Is the public at all prepared for what they're going to see, including all the old and new commercial construction which will now be visible?
How are affected neighbors feeling, and what suggestions do they have to minimize any negative visual impacts? How will these be satisfied? What has been promised?
Shannon addressed the question of hawthorn seedlings; she said that PW would pull them at the "annual maintenance." Does this mean that they actually think they can weed only once per year? Yikes; terrifying thought.What about the reed canary grass, holly, blackberry, and other weed seedlings that birds and wind will bring in? did anyone find out how often PW plans to weed? Water?
Did anyone talk with mindy? Do you think she is going to bid on the planting job or was she present to write another article for Bullwings? Has anyone contacted Ted T about bidding on the plantings or his thoughts on this project or alternatives he would propose? (Moot questions, since Robin K got the bid; but I'd still like to know Ted's take on things.)
What kind of job do you think Orcas Ex will do on the bulldoze/grade/etc? Sensitive? Not?
Monitoring.... Did anyone hear (and get in writing) what they were planning to do for testing and monitoring? This is hugely important, since this is the whole reason the facility is being engineered. What are the actual plans for monitoring? How will they be implemented? By whom? How often? For what will they test? How much will it cost, now and in the long term? Are there written plans and figures for the public to see?
Why do they have to move the berm further south and thus sacrifice the native crabapples and young scoulers willows on the SW corner? Shannon said it was because they had to make the basin bigger to make up for the shallower settling ponds. Can't that be done instead with gentle meandering grading and mounding? Thoughts?
People who attended the open house; would you please weigh in on what questions you asked and what responses you got? I still think this is important to get documented for including in the public records on this project.
Does anyone know if a representative from the Tribes will be present to be sure that no middens are disturbed? Who would contact Tribal officials - PW? Can we follow through to see if this was done?
Although i am pleased that Michael's and Fred's input at least had some better effect, i still feel that more can be done to minimize the impact without compromising the function of the constructed wetland; and far more cheaply, leaving more money for monitoring and operations. Is this reasoning off base? Anyone else feeling this way too? Ideas?
I missed the bid walk-through at the end of June. Did anyone tag along and see where the trees had been marked more clearly regarding what stays and goes? I asked that they mark the trees and delineation of the existing wetland still staying.
What do you think of PW's answer about the discrepancy between the Polaris map and what the wetland expert said is the existing wetland? I attribute that discrepancy to more degradation of the Swale, thus making it appear to be a less sensitive or important wetland. But all this and more was all once a part of Eastsound Swale. Where does degradation factor in? What will happen to the alluvial soil being removed from this site? It is supposed to be put back, and if tarped, probably could. It's important to save the alluvial soil so the wetland can recover if this plan doesn't work out, and I am skeptical that it will work out, from all the science I have read on emergent wetland stormwater treatment facilities.
Anyone want to document a "maturity count" of trees bigger than 12" diameter at chest height? That would be good to do, unless PW already did that and it's obtainable. If so, would someone please direct me to that link or whom to ask for the documents on that?
If Shannon agrees to another open house, late July, this would be helpful. We can then present accurately to the public what's been answered and what still has holes. That date is fast approaching. (MOOT - too bad. The public should have been more involved in this process)
Who got to see the final planting list? Any red flags there? Has anyone seen copies of this on PW website or in the library, as promised?
all the best,
Sadie
***********************
email from June 17, 2011
Hello.
I want to thank everyone on the Aesthetics Committee and concerned citizens for their input on the Mount Property Stormwater Facility. I apologize for not contacting Shannon about another open house. I left the ball in her court with the last email I sent her, which was unwise. Frankly, I dropped the ball. If that open house was going to happen, I should have kept at her to do it. I didn't. Had to walk away. I'm sorry, and feel that I let us all down. Still having a very hard time with this project's immanence, and still feel upset that they're going through with this plan. But if not for you people, it would have been worse - so thank you for your time, efforts, and energy. It was a pleasure to watch you all work together and brainstorm your good ideas and intelligent questions and concerns and make the best of a less than ideal situation.
For what it's worth, I'd still like to hear your input on the process if you feel like taking the time; especially any questions you have that are still unresolved, any new questions or concerns. Below is the original draft of concerns to present to your perusal, the public, and PW before the open house that never followed. Thanks again.
Sadie
***********************
Written June 17
Public Works has made some concessions, thanks to good input from Michael and Fred. But from what Shannon said yesterday, I have questions and maybe some of you do too. I would like to compile a list of questions we already asked, questions still to ask, and any answers you got and how satisfied or concerned you are with the answers you got.
The biggies that stand out for me are maintenance and monitoring,. PW consistently seems to run out of money when a big project is done, and they don't seem to factor-in operational, maintenance, suppliy, or monitoring costs. A look at their projects would point to the fact that there might be little to no maintenance and a bigger load on the workers, and this is a concern.
What will happen to the standing trees without tree support in an extreme wind tunnel, and the visual shock of no taller greenery in places where people are used to seeing it? Is the public at all prepared for what they're going to see, including all the old and new commercial construction which will now be visible?
How are affected neighbors feeling, and what suggestions do they have to minimize any negative visual impacts? How will these be satisfied? What has been promised?
Shannon addressed the question of hawthorn seedlings; she said that PW would pull them at the "annual maintenance." Does this mean that they actually think they can weed only once per year? Yikes; terrifying thought.What about the reed canary grass, holly, blackberry, and other weed seedlings that birds and wind will bring in? did anyone find out how often PW plans to weed? Water?
Did anyone talk with mindy? Do you think she is going to bid on the planting job or was she present to write another article for Bullwings? Has anyone contacted Ted T about bidding on the plantings or his thoughts on this project or alternatives he would propose? (Moot questions, since Robin K got the bid; but I'd still like to know Ted's take on things.)
What kind of job do you think Orcas Ex will do on the bulldoze/grade/etc? Sensitive? Not?
Monitoring.... Did anyone hear (and get in writing) what they were planning to do for testing and monitoring? This is hugely important, since this is the whole reason the facility is being engineered. What are the actual plans for monitoring? How will they be implemented? By whom? How often? For what will they test? How much will it cost, now and in the long term? Are there written plans and figures for the public to see?
Why do they have to move the berm further south and thus sacrifice the native crabapples and young scoulers willows on the SW corner? Shannon said it was because they had to make the basin bigger to make up for the shallower settling ponds. Can't that be done instead with gentle meandering grading and mounding? Thoughts?
People who attended the open house; would you please weigh in on what questions you asked and what responses you got? I still think this is important to get documented for including in the public records on this project.
Does anyone know if a representative from the Tribes will be present to be sure that no middens are disturbed? Who would contact Tribal officials - PW? Can we follow through to see if this was done?
Although i am pleased that Michael's and Fred's input at least had some better effect, i still feel that more can be done to minimize the impact without compromising the function of the constructed wetland; and far more cheaply, leaving more money for monitoring and operations. Is this reasoning off base? Anyone else feeling this way too? Ideas?
I missed the bid walk-through at the end of June. Did anyone tag along and see where the trees had been marked more clearly regarding what stays and goes? I asked that they mark the trees and delineation of the existing wetland still staying.
What do you think of PW's answer about the discrepancy between the Polaris map and what the wetland expert said is the existing wetland? I attribute that discrepancy to more degradation of the Swale, thus making it appear to be a less sensitive or important wetland. But all this and more was all once a part of Eastsound Swale. Where does degradation factor in? What will happen to the alluvial soil being removed from this site? It is supposed to be put back, and if tarped, probably could. It's important to save the alluvial soil so the wetland can recover if this plan doesn't work out, and I am skeptical that it will work out, from all the science I have read on emergent wetland stormwater treatment facilities.
Anyone want to document a "maturity count" of trees bigger than 12" diameter at chest height? That would be good to do, unless PW already did that and it's obtainable. If so, would someone please direct me to that link or whom to ask for the documents on that?
If Shannon agrees to another open house, late July, this would be helpful. We can then present accurately to the public what's been answered and what still has holes. That date is fast approaching. (MOOT - too bad. The public should have been more involved in this process)
Who got to see the final planting list? Any red flags there? Has anyone seen copies of this on PW website or in the library, as promised?
all the best,
Sadie
RE: the Sounder's August 24 article on the Critical Areas Ordinance
Well done. Interesting article and thanks for the sensitive coverage.
Huh. As one of the 50% of us who must live in the UGA for economic reasons, seeing working homeowners and first time buyers with modest incomes forced to hook up to sewer at exhorbitant rates for our all-too-low incomes; as I see more and more UGA homes get foreclosed, and as I watch our trees die due to water diversion, poor planning and siting, overbuilding for a population that may or may not occupy the businesses being built; and as I watch certain commercial developers' unscrupulosity and the county repeatedly "missing" important environmental regulations put in place to protect places like Eastsound Swale - I take offense to Richard Fralick's insulting misbelief that we need little or no buffers protecting our critical areas in the UGA and elsewhere. I also rankle every time Mr. Fralick mentions that the "county can do whatever it wants" and his idea that "big dumb buffers" must go. I think the EPA and the State would also find alarming the idea that the County Council feels it can relax most or all environmental protections on one of our largest - if not the largest - category 2 wetland on the island. And, as the article points out, Eastsound has two of the largest category 2 wetlands out of 5. (Lopez Village UGA faces similar environmental issues.)
It insults our intelligence and care and stewardship of a part of the Island (Eastsound Basin) that affects all other parts due to its geological vulnerability, infrastructure, and shoreline habitat. Fishing Bay is one of the few herring spawning places on the Island. The waters do not flush out, thus everything we dump into it stays there.
Some of us are tired of seeing rampant commercial development going through in the UGA, with no EIS, no ramifications, and much of the time, repeat violators obtaining no legal permits - while homeowners get the brunt of the enforcement and heavy-handedness from CD&P, so I agree to a certain extent with property rights viewpoints and their concerns - provided that we all remember that our first mandate is to protect Critical Areas, while balancing the rest of the14 points in our County Charter.
I don't mind "giving a little" and compromise. I understand that all of us must give a little in order to have a situation that is fair. But it seems to me that the low and middle income people forced to live in the UGAs are giving up a lot - almost everything; and they have neither the time nor the money to fight the real deep pockets - those bent on profit first, even if it means destroying the Critical Areas there. Then when any of us tries to stop the destruction, we are seen as dragging the county down. The fact is, the County dragged itself down, and dragged its feet on the CAO for YEARS; thus we have lost a lot of grant opportunities and monies that would have helped to protect our Critical Areas and given the County a financial hand in doing it, and now the larger government will be ineffective to help us, due to attacks on the EPA and DOE.
For years, some of us have said repeatedly that Eastsound was a lousy place for a UGA - it's geographically, geologically, a hazard!. It contains sensitive areas everywhere. It is a narrow land bridge between two steep hills, at sea level. Nobody listened and nobody is listening now. The Growth Management Act doesn't only say that 50% of us must live in a UGA. It also says that we are mandated to protect our critical areas (even in a UGA). The UGA puts the burden on those who can least afford the time or the money to fight rampant commercial development in an area that is supposed to be slated for housing 50% of us, which none of us chose! It seems a little "sprawl" could happen in villages and hamlets and on the other 99% of the islands, thus unburdening us of a bit of our fate. If a tsunami hits Eastsound (likely) this discussion will all be moot because 50% of us and our housing will be washed away.
The decisions being made this year and next will affect all of us, long term. Can we all agree to some compromise, or will 50% of us be the sacrificial lambs for the wants of the rest?
If anyone else in the UGA is interested in more visionary planning and saving our Critical Areas from destruction (outsiders welcome!), then we need some intelligent dialogue, long-term visionary planning and actions to address our conflicting issues in a balanced way. Perhaps it's time for a UGA Citizens' Watchdog Group if the County won't do its job to protect our critical areas. Interested parties, please contact me. I'm in the phone book; or stop and talk with me at Island Market.
Huh. As one of the 50% of us who must live in the UGA for economic reasons, seeing working homeowners and first time buyers with modest incomes forced to hook up to sewer at exhorbitant rates for our all-too-low incomes; as I see more and more UGA homes get foreclosed, and as I watch our trees die due to water diversion, poor planning and siting, overbuilding for a population that may or may not occupy the businesses being built; and as I watch certain commercial developers' unscrupulosity and the county repeatedly "missing" important environmental regulations put in place to protect places like Eastsound Swale - I take offense to Richard Fralick's insulting misbelief that we need little or no buffers protecting our critical areas in the UGA and elsewhere. I also rankle every time Mr. Fralick mentions that the "county can do whatever it wants" and his idea that "big dumb buffers" must go. I think the EPA and the State would also find alarming the idea that the County Council feels it can relax most or all environmental protections on one of our largest - if not the largest - category 2 wetland on the island. And, as the article points out, Eastsound has two of the largest category 2 wetlands out of 5. (Lopez Village UGA faces similar environmental issues.)
It insults our intelligence and care and stewardship of a part of the Island (Eastsound Basin) that affects all other parts due to its geological vulnerability, infrastructure, and shoreline habitat. Fishing Bay is one of the few herring spawning places on the Island. The waters do not flush out, thus everything we dump into it stays there.
Some of us are tired of seeing rampant commercial development going through in the UGA, with no EIS, no ramifications, and much of the time, repeat violators obtaining no legal permits - while homeowners get the brunt of the enforcement and heavy-handedness from CD&P, so I agree to a certain extent with property rights viewpoints and their concerns - provided that we all remember that our first mandate is to protect Critical Areas, while balancing the rest of the14 points in our County Charter.
I don't mind "giving a little" and compromise. I understand that all of us must give a little in order to have a situation that is fair. But it seems to me that the low and middle income people forced to live in the UGAs are giving up a lot - almost everything; and they have neither the time nor the money to fight the real deep pockets - those bent on profit first, even if it means destroying the Critical Areas there. Then when any of us tries to stop the destruction, we are seen as dragging the county down. The fact is, the County dragged itself down, and dragged its feet on the CAO for YEARS; thus we have lost a lot of grant opportunities and monies that would have helped to protect our Critical Areas and given the County a financial hand in doing it, and now the larger government will be ineffective to help us, due to attacks on the EPA and DOE.
For years, some of us have said repeatedly that Eastsound was a lousy place for a UGA - it's geographically, geologically, a hazard!. It contains sensitive areas everywhere. It is a narrow land bridge between two steep hills, at sea level. Nobody listened and nobody is listening now. The Growth Management Act doesn't only say that 50% of us must live in a UGA. It also says that we are mandated to protect our critical areas (even in a UGA). The UGA puts the burden on those who can least afford the time or the money to fight rampant commercial development in an area that is supposed to be slated for housing 50% of us, which none of us chose! It seems a little "sprawl" could happen in villages and hamlets and on the other 99% of the islands, thus unburdening us of a bit of our fate. If a tsunami hits Eastsound (likely) this discussion will all be moot because 50% of us and our housing will be washed away.
The decisions being made this year and next will affect all of us, long term. Can we all agree to some compromise, or will 50% of us be the sacrificial lambs for the wants of the rest?
If anyone else in the UGA is interested in more visionary planning and saving our Critical Areas from destruction (outsiders welcome!), then we need some intelligent dialogue, long-term visionary planning and actions to address our conflicting issues in a balanced way. Perhaps it's time for a UGA Citizens' Watchdog Group if the County won't do its job to protect our critical areas. Interested parties, please contact me. I'm in the phone book; or stop and talk with me at Island Market.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Say Goodbye: September 7; the day the bulldozers begin deconstructing a functional mixed-forest wetland for an "engineered wetland" stormwater treatment facility
Mark your calendars. September 7, 2011.
The grim and, to my mind, horrible, beginning of a dubious experiment will begin on this day. Amid the sounds of grinding engines, scraping blades, chain saw roars, snapping tree limbs and trunks, roots ripping from the earth, amid the scramble of terrified birds, bats, and amphibians to escape the crushing 'dozers and find themselves homeless and possibly doomed to die, amid confused bees with no place to go or winter over - 'progress' is being made by destroying a functional wetland ecosystem that only needed a little help, in order to build an elaborate "engineered wetland stormwater treatment facility."
After June's 'open house' with 3 days notice for a handful of people, no newspaper notifications, the inevitability of this disastrous error looming, and the refusal of Public Works to entertain a low-impact alternative requiring only simple grading with shovels and some low-key clearing with maybe a backhoe - much, much cheaper - I'll admit I just wanted to curl into a fetal ball and suck my thumb until the carnage was over. Only it doesn't end in September. We will be seeing the visual impact of this and the dearth of diversity for a long time to come. Think on how long it took to grow each and every filtering tree. Think of all the bio-diverse life that each tree and shrub houses, shelters, shades. Think of all the mature and maturing trees - all soon to be lost.
To their misguided credit, Public Works actually thinks they are doing the right thing: No blame. But they're sadly mistaken. Besides the small plant specimens picked to stay within the woefully inadequate plant budget, many of which will need to be caged for a long time against the onslaughts of rabbits and deer, there are other crucial issues as yet unaddressed. This site is a wind tunnel in an extreme wind area. This parcel is the last forested piece in this particular north-south strip of land - on a section of Orcas that is only one mile wide and at sea level; Eastsound Urban Growth Area. This area contains a large category two wetland - Eastsound Swale. The stormwater facility parcel was once part of the Swale, and not that long ago. 20 yrs. max. Another pressing question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered is: will the grant money run out with no money left for maintenance (weeding, watering), monitoring of how well the filtering is working, and operational costs? From the other projects done by PW, I feel pessimistic, and pretty sure there'll be no money for operations. So what's the motive for obtaining large grants to engineer elaborate things with no budget to follow through and monitor and maintain?
Then there's the science. Scientific field evidence (some of which is included in the Best Available Science documents for SJC's Critical Areas Ordinance in the Wetlands and Stormwater sections), seems to point to 4 unavoidable facts about why this project is likely to fail:
1) stormwater should be diverted AWAY from an existing functional wetland, not into it. Why? Because they eventually, within 20 years, dry it up, as do sedimentation ponds.
2) After 20 or so years of observing failed and failing "emergent" engineered stormwater treatment facilities, the conclusion from many wetland field scientists is that mixed-forest is, after all, best. (We already have that now.)
3) When you remove alluvial soil from a wetland (which Public Works plans to do), it can't recover; maybe not ever.
4)Sedimentation ponds such as retention and detention ponds (which will be built on this site) are not advised for dryland summer areas (two or more months of dry weather, which is what the San Juans have.)The pollution issue alone of storms after a dry season is scary, and probably a topic for another blog post.
At the end of this post I put up a few pictures of the "proposed stormwater site" that I took in spring. The trees were blooming, the bees were humming, the place was full of life, horsetail softly waving on the forest floor, and the honey smells of blooming flowers. Birds darted among the trees. Coolness and shade, wind shelter, and so many shades of green graced this land. I will not forget.
Walk this land while you still have time. Get in touch with the pulse of Life there. Appreciate all that is there; life in abundance. Say good bye. And vow to be vigilant to never to let a poorly planned, over-engineered project such as this happen again in our "Urban Growth Area" home. We must do better to protect our critical areas.
-
Surround this land with protection and your highest thoughts. Send your love and good energy to the tree-beings and their inhabitants and dependents, that their spirits remain eternal and intact although their bodies will die. Send your healing thoughts to the soils and waters of the wetland, that they be protected. Send your respect to the Native ancestors who might lie here, perhaps in middens. (I hope at least we can have someone on site to observe if there are bones, and stop work if there are.) Send your scientific evidence to Public Works and the Council and ask that it be put into the records. Ask, in whatever fashion you do, that the Universe helps the new plant beings to be nurtured and grow and thrive to heal the land.
The grim and, to my mind, horrible, beginning of a dubious experiment will begin on this day. Amid the sounds of grinding engines, scraping blades, chain saw roars, snapping tree limbs and trunks, roots ripping from the earth, amid the scramble of terrified birds, bats, and amphibians to escape the crushing 'dozers and find themselves homeless and possibly doomed to die, amid confused bees with no place to go or winter over - 'progress' is being made by destroying a functional wetland ecosystem that only needed a little help, in order to build an elaborate "engineered wetland stormwater treatment facility."
After June's 'open house' with 3 days notice for a handful of people, no newspaper notifications, the inevitability of this disastrous error looming, and the refusal of Public Works to entertain a low-impact alternative requiring only simple grading with shovels and some low-key clearing with maybe a backhoe - much, much cheaper - I'll admit I just wanted to curl into a fetal ball and suck my thumb until the carnage was over. Only it doesn't end in September. We will be seeing the visual impact of this and the dearth of diversity for a long time to come. Think on how long it took to grow each and every filtering tree. Think of all the bio-diverse life that each tree and shrub houses, shelters, shades. Think of all the mature and maturing trees - all soon to be lost.
To their misguided credit, Public Works actually thinks they are doing the right thing: No blame. But they're sadly mistaken. Besides the small plant specimens picked to stay within the woefully inadequate plant budget, many of which will need to be caged for a long time against the onslaughts of rabbits and deer, there are other crucial issues as yet unaddressed. This site is a wind tunnel in an extreme wind area. This parcel is the last forested piece in this particular north-south strip of land - on a section of Orcas that is only one mile wide and at sea level; Eastsound Urban Growth Area. This area contains a large category two wetland - Eastsound Swale. The stormwater facility parcel was once part of the Swale, and not that long ago. 20 yrs. max. Another pressing question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered is: will the grant money run out with no money left for maintenance (weeding, watering), monitoring of how well the filtering is working, and operational costs? From the other projects done by PW, I feel pessimistic, and pretty sure there'll be no money for operations. So what's the motive for obtaining large grants to engineer elaborate things with no budget to follow through and monitor and maintain?
Then there's the science. Scientific field evidence (some of which is included in the Best Available Science documents for SJC's Critical Areas Ordinance in the Wetlands and Stormwater sections), seems to point to 4 unavoidable facts about why this project is likely to fail:
1) stormwater should be diverted AWAY from an existing functional wetland, not into it. Why? Because they eventually, within 20 years, dry it up, as do sedimentation ponds.
2) After 20 or so years of observing failed and failing "emergent" engineered stormwater treatment facilities, the conclusion from many wetland field scientists is that mixed-forest is, after all, best. (We already have that now.)
3) When you remove alluvial soil from a wetland (which Public Works plans to do), it can't recover; maybe not ever.
4)Sedimentation ponds such as retention and detention ponds (which will be built on this site) are not advised for dryland summer areas (two or more months of dry weather, which is what the San Juans have.)The pollution issue alone of storms after a dry season is scary, and probably a topic for another blog post.
At the end of this post I put up a few pictures of the "proposed stormwater site" that I took in spring. The trees were blooming, the bees were humming, the place was full of life, horsetail softly waving on the forest floor, and the honey smells of blooming flowers. Birds darted among the trees. Coolness and shade, wind shelter, and so many shades of green graced this land. I will not forget.
Walk this land while you still have time. Get in touch with the pulse of Life there. Appreciate all that is there; life in abundance. Say good bye. And vow to be vigilant to never to let a poorly planned, over-engineered project such as this happen again in our "Urban Growth Area" home. We must do better to protect our critical areas.
-
Surround this land with protection and your highest thoughts. Send your love and good energy to the tree-beings and their inhabitants and dependents, that their spirits remain eternal and intact although their bodies will die. Send your healing thoughts to the soils and waters of the wetland, that they be protected. Send your respect to the Native ancestors who might lie here, perhaps in middens. (I hope at least we can have someone on site to observe if there are bones, and stop work if there are.) Send your scientific evidence to Public Works and the Council and ask that it be put into the records. Ask, in whatever fashion you do, that the Universe helps the new plant beings to be nurtured and grow and thrive to heal the land.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
A Letter to San Juan County Planners, Public Works, and County Council
Dear San Juan County Council, Planning, and Public Works;
In response to the upcoming Planning Commission meeting and comment time for the Critical Areas Ordinance final draft, many questions arise.
What effect do our comments actually have in the course of deciding the final wording on the documents and amendments? I would like to know that what I and others say will count in the final draft, and that all points of view are taken into consideration, but that is not what I have seen in my 30 years of living here. What I have seen instead is cumulative and irreversible damage and destruction of the environment and critical areas, especially in non-shoreline areas, where the state only has advisory capacity and no real jurisdiction. Our forested and marshland wetlands have been consistently compromised and thrown under the bus. This concerns me greatly, especially in UGA areas, where it is most crucial to protect our wetlands. Both Lopez Village and Eastsound contain large category 2 wetlands, as well as other so-called "lesser" wetlands.
Some of us, perhaps the minority, want to ensure protection of our critical areas because once you damage and destroy them, the damage is irreversible and collectively, we really have no idea long-term, of what this means for the greater whole in the long term. We as a county are advised again and again by state DOE to take the path of no harm or least harm; that mitigation is not a real option – rather, no action is advised until all scientific facts are known - and this gets repeatedly ignored by developers and by the county; all because of some projected population growth numbers and refusal to think outside the box. It’s exasperating.
We have no real hope of enforcement for land use laws or the CAO; everyone knows it. Without fixing the enforcement issues so that there is at least one enforcement officer per island and follow-through on enforcement orders, none of this matters because people will keep violating the land and waters, just as they are now and have done all along. What is really going to change that? Besides enforcement, what are the incentives for people to choose to do the right thing, and the education that may help them make these land use decisions?
Why is the Polaris Mapping System not used extensively in land use decisions? Why do the wetland areas appear much larger on the Polaris maps than the county claims they are, and why are we not factoring in the degradation that has already happened? All maps need to all be used, so that we can see the cumulative damage we have altready caused, and therefore exercise extreme caution in the future not to do any worse damage. What is proposed instead? To re-map (ie shrink the wetlands) and then discount the other older maps, which clearly show the degradation over time. We put roads through wetlands, killing countless amphibians. We widen and straighten them, destroying beautiful, healthy mature trees in the process. It hurts my heart to think of all the creatures dependent on these ecosystems and their wholesale slaughter. Is this the best we can do?
I understand that the county has a budget shortfall. So do we workers, who are asked to carry the tax load of the entire nation on our backs. What I don't understand is the propensity of the county to use grant monies to build and engineer elaborate projects and then consistently run out of money for the upkeep and monitoring of these projects, which is exactly what will happen with Eastsound's Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility. It will destroy habitat for countless birds, frogs, bats, and will destroy many mature trees and the only windbreak left in that area of Eastsound.
Excuse my seeming cynisicm, but I want some honest and well-thought-out answers and solutions to these complex questions and concerns. To watch this continued destruction of all the plants and creatures who can’t speak for themselves over time has been heartbreaking and infuriating, and leaves me with little trust for County officials, no matter how well-meaning their intentions.
In response to the upcoming Planning Commission meeting and comment time for the Critical Areas Ordinance final draft, many questions arise.
What effect do our comments actually have in the course of deciding the final wording on the documents and amendments? I would like to know that what I and others say will count in the final draft, and that all points of view are taken into consideration, but that is not what I have seen in my 30 years of living here. What I have seen instead is cumulative and irreversible damage and destruction of the environment and critical areas, especially in non-shoreline areas, where the state only has advisory capacity and no real jurisdiction. Our forested and marshland wetlands have been consistently compromised and thrown under the bus. This concerns me greatly, especially in UGA areas, where it is most crucial to protect our wetlands. Both Lopez Village and Eastsound contain large category 2 wetlands, as well as other so-called "lesser" wetlands.
Some of us, perhaps the minority, want to ensure protection of our critical areas because once you damage and destroy them, the damage is irreversible and collectively, we really have no idea long-term, of what this means for the greater whole in the long term. We as a county are advised again and again by state DOE to take the path of no harm or least harm; that mitigation is not a real option – rather, no action is advised until all scientific facts are known - and this gets repeatedly ignored by developers and by the county; all because of some projected population growth numbers and refusal to think outside the box. It’s exasperating.
We have no real hope of enforcement for land use laws or the CAO; everyone knows it. Without fixing the enforcement issues so that there is at least one enforcement officer per island and follow-through on enforcement orders, none of this matters because people will keep violating the land and waters, just as they are now and have done all along. What is really going to change that? Besides enforcement, what are the incentives for people to choose to do the right thing, and the education that may help them make these land use decisions?
Why is the Polaris Mapping System not used extensively in land use decisions? Why do the wetland areas appear much larger on the Polaris maps than the county claims they are, and why are we not factoring in the degradation that has already happened? All maps need to all be used, so that we can see the cumulative damage we have altready caused, and therefore exercise extreme caution in the future not to do any worse damage. What is proposed instead? To re-map (ie shrink the wetlands) and then discount the other older maps, which clearly show the degradation over time. We put roads through wetlands, killing countless amphibians. We widen and straighten them, destroying beautiful, healthy mature trees in the process. It hurts my heart to think of all the creatures dependent on these ecosystems and their wholesale slaughter. Is this the best we can do?
I understand that the county has a budget shortfall. So do we workers, who are asked to carry the tax load of the entire nation on our backs. What I don't understand is the propensity of the county to use grant monies to build and engineer elaborate projects and then consistently run out of money for the upkeep and monitoring of these projects, which is exactly what will happen with Eastsound's Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility. It will destroy habitat for countless birds, frogs, bats, and will destroy many mature trees and the only windbreak left in that area of Eastsound.
Excuse my seeming cynisicm, but I want some honest and well-thought-out answers and solutions to these complex questions and concerns. To watch this continued destruction of all the plants and creatures who can’t speak for themselves over time has been heartbreaking and infuriating, and leaves me with little trust for County officials, no matter how well-meaning their intentions.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Eastsound Stormwater treatment facility; This.... or THIS?
What would you rather have: This?
...or THIS?
(These two photos are an estimate - not claimed to be accurate, but more to give a scale and a visual idea of what will be lost, based on the latest 80% Grading Plan provided by Public Works. This will be corrected if the final plan shows something different, and as more accurate information comes in.) That's Eastsound Swale and the hill West of Lovers Lane behind the Swale trees.
The short version and upshot of this is that Public Works puts this project out for bid on May 31 - less than 5 days from now, with excavation beginning in September. We will be seeing and feeling the impact of that for long months before, and many years after, planting begins. We have little time to get the word out. If you use social networking, please link to this blog. Thanks so much.
We know and accept that storm water treatment is badly needed in order to protect Fishing Bay, and that it's mandated by the Growth Management Act for Urban Growth Areas. Where we take issue is in the engineering and heavy-handedness of approach. Our concerns are grave. These changes will affect us long term.
The (very) long version follows. Some of what's in it will be repeated in shorter bits in the future. I tried to address the whole big picture. I hope you take the time to read it. It contains concerns and details some of the alternatives presented to Public Works by a handful of dedicated citizens who, at least, effected some small changes in the design plan. Thanks to them, a few more trees will (hopefully) stand. Thinking of what will happen to the rest... no words can come close to saying how this hurts my heart.
The short version and upshot of this is that Public Works puts this project out for bid on May 31 - less than 5 days from now, with excavation beginning in September. We will be seeing and feeling the impact of that for long months before, and many years after, planting begins. We have little time to get the word out. If you use social networking, please link to this blog. Thanks so much.
We know and accept that storm water treatment is badly needed in order to protect Fishing Bay, and that it's mandated by the Growth Management Act for Urban Growth Areas. Where we take issue is in the engineering and heavy-handedness of approach. Our concerns are grave. These changes will affect us long term.
The (very) long version follows. Some of what's in it will be repeated in shorter bits in the future. I tried to address the whole big picture. I hope you take the time to read it. It contains concerns and details some of the alternatives presented to Public Works by a handful of dedicated citizens who, at least, effected some small changes in the design plan. Thanks to them, a few more trees will (hopefully) stand. Thinking of what will happen to the rest... no words can come close to saying how this hurts my heart.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Stormwater Treatment Facility Will Betray Public Trust and Good Faith
I posted this in the online papers last weekend. The important thing right now is the first two paragraphs of the editorial. The shopping center will visited in more detail at a later time.
You’re at the Farmers Market or enjoying Music in the Park on a Sunday evening. When you look toward the Band Shell, what will you see? Blinding sun in your eyes and a backdrop denuded of trees except for a few – IF they survive the bulldozers and lack of supporting microclimate. This is what Public Works will do in autumn in order to give us badly needed treatment of some of Eastsound’s stormwater. Their rationale? “We had two workshops this winter; the public had plenty of time to comment.” Plenty of time? This thing has been in the works since the 1980s! Public Works got a grant for this project several years ago- the kind where PW spends money from the County coffers and receives payback when the project is completed.
The public was NOT included in this process until too late. In our UGA wind tunnel, the forested backdrop to the Stage on the Green, and tree habitat to many creatures, will be gone. The new plants will mostly be 2 – 4’ tall – in an area heavily infested by deer, and worse, rabbits. An aesthetics committee was asked to join in at the end, and they effected some better changes because they had ground experience with the existing wetland in question. In order to make this “constructed” wetland, most of the supporting habitat to the existing one will go.
Just think what we could’ve had if citizens had been included all along. Another part of this deal is a new shopping center just North of the Gym and West of the Post Office – directly abutting Eastsound Swale – a category 2 regulated wetland. The owner granted Public Works some easement. PW will pipe his stormwater to the facility, and he can build whatever he wants in an area in which he should not be allowed to build. More of our Critical Areas in town get trashed in the tradeoff.
People – get involved! We need to hold the County accountable for bad planning. They keep saying they want our involvement in planning; if we don’t get involved early and keep the pressure on, this is what we’ll keep getting. When the public sees this stormwater facility and what was sacrificed to have it, they will feel betrayed and outraged – again – with ample reason.
Sadie Bailey
Eastsound, WA
Saturday, May 7, 2011
An Urban Growth Area Resident’s Perspective on Critical Areas
Here in Eastsound’s Urban Growth Area (UGA) – at sea-level, only a mile wide, and vulnerable to a wipeout in an overdue 9.0 magnitude earthquake – it seems our critical areas are viewed as disposable. Here we get maximum negative impacts from poorly planned development, and the brunt of stormwater dumping into non-flushing Fishing Bay. We’re forced to have sewers and chlorinated water, expected to withstand more retail buildings eating away at Eastsound Swale and other important wetlands while many existing buildings have vacancies.
Forcing UGA residents to abandon septic drainfields and pay to install sewer systems hurts more than their already strained purse strings. It has killed countless cedars and other trees, many of which took hundreds of years to grow, because their water supply was cut off and diverted. This devastates tree-dependent wildlife. In a wind-tunnel area already deforested due to over-development, we can’t afford to lose any more trees - natural wind breaks, shelter, habitat for countless avian species, stormwater root filtration systems. No artificial thing can replace a mature living tree.
Here In OUR urban growth back yard, we watch our beloved natural habitats get bulldozed and our village become the toilet and dumping ground of the island, so that the rest of the populace can have its open space. And at EPRC meetings, we suffer county officials saying that wetland buffers can be relaxed in a UGA, as we watch Eastsound Swale get chopped and destroyed some more. It’s maddening.
What recourse do we town-dwellers have? Most of us are low to moderate income people who must work. We can’t afford litigation and the constant vigilance it takes to protect our critical areas. Unless the rest of the citizens of Orcas begin to see a connection with us here, and realize this town is theirs too since they also use it, Eastsound critical habitats and their pristine beauty will be destroyed. The county has dragged its feet on the CAO for so long that the grant monies which could have helped us compile local Best Available Science (BAS) data are drying up, due to attacks on federal and state environmental protection laws and severe budget cuts.
How can we convince people to want to do the right thing regarding critical areas? We can start by educating the public and landowners about the functions of wetlands and their necessary role in cleaning our critical aquifers and supporting biodiversity. The whole of Eastsound UGA is a critical aquifer wetland that has been so degraded it’s now unrecognizable from even 20 years ago. That doesn’t give anyone the “right” to continue to degrade it. Each development that chops up another piece of Eastsound Swale irrevocably destroys lives; tree, bird, fish, amphibian, flower, bat, bee. What I speak of is only a microcosm of the much greater interconnected big picture.
Can we find ways through education and incentives to protect Critical Areas? We must try, together. This is too important an issue to leave to a few county officials who think Eastsound is a write-off. I would argue that Eastsound is MOST important to protect. Many First Nations know, and knew, the interconnectedness of all things. When will we learn? Please submit your comments about the CAO and even if you’re not a “townie”, don’t forget us here in Eastsound, who are taking the hit for the rest of you.
"I do not see a delegation for the Four Footed. I see no seat for the Eagles. We forget and we consider ourselves superior. But we are after all a mere part of Creation. And we must consider to understand where we are. And we stand somewhere between the mountain and the Ant. Somewhere and only there as part and parcel of the Creation." - Chief Oren Lyons, Oneida in an address to the Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 1977
Forcing UGA residents to abandon septic drainfields and pay to install sewer systems hurts more than their already strained purse strings. It has killed countless cedars and other trees, many of which took hundreds of years to grow, because their water supply was cut off and diverted. This devastates tree-dependent wildlife. In a wind-tunnel area already deforested due to over-development, we can’t afford to lose any more trees - natural wind breaks, shelter, habitat for countless avian species, stormwater root filtration systems. No artificial thing can replace a mature living tree.
Here In OUR urban growth back yard, we watch our beloved natural habitats get bulldozed and our village become the toilet and dumping ground of the island, so that the rest of the populace can have its open space. And at EPRC meetings, we suffer county officials saying that wetland buffers can be relaxed in a UGA, as we watch Eastsound Swale get chopped and destroyed some more. It’s maddening.
What recourse do we town-dwellers have? Most of us are low to moderate income people who must work. We can’t afford litigation and the constant vigilance it takes to protect our critical areas. Unless the rest of the citizens of Orcas begin to see a connection with us here, and realize this town is theirs too since they also use it, Eastsound critical habitats and their pristine beauty will be destroyed. The county has dragged its feet on the CAO for so long that the grant monies which could have helped us compile local Best Available Science (BAS) data are drying up, due to attacks on federal and state environmental protection laws and severe budget cuts.
All BAS and Best Management Practices Wetland documents I have read (and I have read many, since our apt. complex sits on part of the degraded Swale) say that mitigation and artificially engineered wetlands are the last resort and never achieve “no net loss.” Dr. Adamus said that until we can document local BAS, we should err on the side of doing nothing if there’s any chance of harm. Here’s an excerpt from his summary: “Many other data gaps exist that pertain to upland habitat, but these are perhaps the ones that most limit attempts to base land use decisions on sound science. Despite the above data gaps and information needs, the County’s efforts to protect habitats and biodiversity should not be put on hold until more information is available. State laws, the public trust, and popular concern for protecting natural resources from long-lasting harm dictate that both voluntary and regulatory efforts proceed with urgency using the best available science, whatever its current limitations.”
How can we convince people to want to do the right thing regarding critical areas? We can start by educating the public and landowners about the functions of wetlands and their necessary role in cleaning our critical aquifers and supporting biodiversity. The whole of Eastsound UGA is a critical aquifer wetland that has been so degraded it’s now unrecognizable from even 20 years ago. That doesn’t give anyone the “right” to continue to degrade it. Each development that chops up another piece of Eastsound Swale irrevocably destroys lives; tree, bird, fish, amphibian, flower, bat, bee. What I speak of is only a microcosm of the much greater interconnected big picture.
Can we find ways through education and incentives to protect Critical Areas? We must try, together. This is too important an issue to leave to a few county officials who think Eastsound is a write-off. I would argue that Eastsound is MOST important to protect. Many First Nations know, and knew, the interconnectedness of all things. When will we learn? Please submit your comments about the CAO and even if you’re not a “townie”, don’t forget us here in Eastsound, who are taking the hit for the rest of you.
"I do not see a delegation for the Four Footed. I see no seat for the Eagles. We forget and we consider ourselves superior. But we are after all a mere part of Creation. And we must consider to understand where we are. And we stand somewhere between the mountain and the Ant. Somewhere and only there as part and parcel of the Creation." - Chief Oren Lyons, Oneida in an address to the Non-Governmental Organizations of the United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 1977
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
What about a Third Option on the Ballot Regarding Solid Waste?
At the town hall meeting on February 24, Orcas council members offered us two options for solid waste to be put on November’s ballot:
1) close the solid waste facilities and force curbside pickup and recycling, or
2) keep the solid waste facilities open as-is by imposing a parcel tax.
This is a risky way to approach the solid waste issue for several reasons.
A) San Juan Sanitation’s contract ends in 2012. That gives little time to look for alternatives if we want to contract with somebody else.
B) See #1 – too little time to look for a long-haul solution closer than Eastern Oregon.
C) This puts the power in the County’s hands rather than the people’s.
D) There is a third option that we’ve been telling the county we want for years: Keep existing facilities open, and help pay for that by reducing, reusing, and recycling.
This could mean privatization and forming a cooperative much like Opalco. Members would pay a one-time membership fee, pay for services used, and vote in annual meetings. There are creative ways to solve the solid waste issue and the citizenry has the wherewithal to make it happen. We already know that we could stop hauling away things which would make soil. Imagine what else we could do together.
Last summer, a random survey was mailed out to about 1,000 people in the county. Regular independent audits of solid waste as part of the budget solution was overwhelmingly the top priority. (See exhibit 9). Are those audits available to the public on the County website? If not, why? If we are going to come up with viable alternatives to solve our solid waste issues, we need these numbers for comparison.
Please read the survey to see if it reflects your goals and desires. Make your voices known through letters, emails, and by becoming a regular witnessing presence at meetings affecting solid waste and other important issues our county faces. At this Thursday’s EPRC meeting, Council will present a solid waste update. We need the third option put on the ballot.
Here is the link to that survey.
http://www.sanjuanco.com/Docs/CAgendadocs/08-30-2010/PowerPoint_SanJuanSolidWasteSurvey_083010.pdf
http://www.sanjuanco.com/Docs/CAgendadocs/08-30-2010/PowerPoint_SanJuanSolidWasteSurvey_083010.pdf
Sadie Bailey
Eastsound, WA
Monday, March 7, 2011
PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY. Please everyone, show up and make some noise
Mar 10, 2011 - Thursday
NOTICE OF SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING – Thursday, March 10, 2011
Mar 10, 2011 - Thursday - 4:00 PM until 5:45 PM
Location: Fire Protection District No. 2, 45 Lavender Lane, Eastsound, Orcas Island Description: Please join County Council Members Richard Fralick, District 4, Orcas West and Patty Miller, District 5, Orcas East, for a Town Hall conversation at the Fire Protection District No. 2, 45 Lavender Lane, Eastsound, Orcas Island on Thursday, March 10, 2011, 4:00-5:45 p.m. Items for discussion will be Balancing the Budget in Economically Challenging Times, the Solid Waste Program, the Update of the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Plan Update and other important issues facing the County. An open questions and answers forum will follow this presentation. For more information please contact the Clerk of the County Council at (360) 378-2898.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A Tribute to Dorothy Austin
Dorothy Austin, artist, mother, friend to the environment, died Saturday February 12 from stage 4 breast cancer. She fought hard to keep her quality of life and live as long as she could how she wanted. The last 4 1/2 months were unbelievably rough. A weaker soul would have crumbled. Not only did she keep on through impossible odds, she found ways to love and be engaged in life every day she had. Her heart stayed grateful for the little things. She found ways to keep happy and positive as she could. She asked for help when she was weak in spirit. She was loved by people who knew her all over the globe. People closest to her felt her fire and often it burned - but if you got down to her heart and spoke with her from the heart, she was approachable, vulnerable. She understood the language of the heart. She couldn't contain those big emotions, that outrage at man's stupidity. She was keenly intelligent and clear and could retain a lot of information and keep it straight.
Dorothy was a tireless worker for the local environment here on Orcas. She fought "city hall" numerous times, called a spade a spade, didn't mince words, alienated people because of that, and she had enemies. The work she did wore on her. It hurt her heart. She was tough and kept getting up every time she was knocked down. She was tenacious; when she got hold of something she did not let go or drop the ball. She walked her talk. Always. She was complex, extraordinarily generous (to a fault), difficult, beautiful, fun, loving, caring, wildly creative, prolific, productive, flamboyant, passionate, curious, avid, demanding at times, spoiled, elegant, independent, observant, and more. She had her faults, as we all do, but her heart was pure and true. She will be missed.
Dearest to her heart was this island that she loved so much, and fighting to save its critical habitats. She was especially passionate about Eastsound and even though she didn't live in the UGA proper, was always in the hub of what was going on here, and held the County's feet to the fire numerous times when the Council (and former Commissioners) tried to write this place off. She believed so much in saving habitat that she spent much of her modest fortune on it. I believe the heartbreak of the corruption and obstructionism she found time and again is what made her ill. It can break a person.
Luckily, she pulled away from the full-time fight when she had her beloved daughter Pearl. Pearl was everything to her, always in her thoughts and heart. Dorothy became re-committed to her art and afforded Pearl as many experiences as she could with art, travel, shared times doing fun things, being with. Dorothy finally realized and claimed her title as Artist; she was always that but it took her a lifetime to see it and claim it.
May she rest in peace and know that others, when carrying on the necessary battles to save the environment, think of her and draw strength from her tireless efforts and love of this earth. We who do art think of her and her art and excitation at doing the work itself. She was inspired and inspiring.
Dorothy was a tireless worker for the local environment here on Orcas. She fought "city hall" numerous times, called a spade a spade, didn't mince words, alienated people because of that, and she had enemies. The work she did wore on her. It hurt her heart. She was tough and kept getting up every time she was knocked down. She was tenacious; when she got hold of something she did not let go or drop the ball. She walked her talk. Always. She was complex, extraordinarily generous (to a fault), difficult, beautiful, fun, loving, caring, wildly creative, prolific, productive, flamboyant, passionate, curious, avid, demanding at times, spoiled, elegant, independent, observant, and more. She had her faults, as we all do, but her heart was pure and true. She will be missed.
Dearest to her heart was this island that she loved so much, and fighting to save its critical habitats. She was especially passionate about Eastsound and even though she didn't live in the UGA proper, was always in the hub of what was going on here, and held the County's feet to the fire numerous times when the Council (and former Commissioners) tried to write this place off. She believed so much in saving habitat that she spent much of her modest fortune on it. I believe the heartbreak of the corruption and obstructionism she found time and again is what made her ill. It can break a person.
Luckily, she pulled away from the full-time fight when she had her beloved daughter Pearl. Pearl was everything to her, always in her thoughts and heart. Dorothy became re-committed to her art and afforded Pearl as many experiences as she could with art, travel, shared times doing fun things, being with. Dorothy finally realized and claimed her title as Artist; she was always that but it took her a lifetime to see it and claim it.
May she rest in peace and know that others, when carrying on the necessary battles to save the environment, think of her and draw strength from her tireless efforts and love of this earth. We who do art think of her and her art and excitation at doing the work itself. She was inspired and inspiring.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility Plan in Eastsound Raises Questions, Concerns
I had the chance to walk the proposed Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility behind the Village Green and bandshell on a field trip with the stormwater committee on Tuesday. The plan being used was formulated by Amanda Azous, a highly respected wetlands expert. Public Works had 2 open houses showing the plan, which, due to scheduling conflicts, I was unable to attend.
The field trip / walk was far more instructive than looking at any paper plan, and it was much easier to see the reality of what is proposed and what exists now. Here we witnessed Eastsound Swale doing what a wetland is supposed to do; percolating and filtering water and flowing naturally. (except where the property was cleared and bermed for a dam at the south end of the lot; there was a drain put in and the water was flowing into that.)
It's hard to fathom how destroying a wetland's tree buffer filtration system, and then rebuilding an artificial wetland, could be the best possible option, or the only option. All the wetland vegetation and trees behind the bandshell would be bulldozed, destroying the natural flow and the remaining stream that exists. Then the land would be graded and dug and filled with topsoil and replanted with things that would take years to get to size. (One would hope that at least the wetland soil would be re-used, but see below - noxious weeds, so probably not.) There will be a patch of trees left intact at the southwest end of the parcel; if you count possible root damage from excavators as intact.
Two retaining ponds are planned, with a foot bridge and trail crossing the wetland east-west, plus a 60 foot long concrete 10' wide ramp for an excavator to maneuver down to the north pond and clean out the pollutant sediment. I don't know how the south pond would be cleaned. (Not sure what happens to that gunk or where it'll be dumped.) Then a fence, hopefully not cyclone, would be constructed around the ramp and north pond to keep people out; the trail and footbridge would go alongside the south side of this fence. This is what we'd look at as we look from the Village Green toward the bandshell and behind, so there are aesthetic considerations.
Taking down most of the trees would not only ruin their root filtration; grading for the detention ponds would finish the job. Add to this the effect of sun exposure - which would encourage the rapid spread of noxious weeds already taking hold. (see below). Some people are concerned about the hawthorn trees (east edge) as noxious weed trees. They tend to take an area quickly and are thorny; perhaps should be removed, but their roots are doing the job of filtering. The rest of the trees which include alders and a few crabapples should be protected (both are recommended wetland trees and indicative of wetlands), as well as any pines that would help slow stormwater runoff. Conifers are the best at filtration, absorbing 50% of rainwater with their roots and holding it there. In the higher elevation areas of the swale, there are a few pines that do the job nicely.
Another concern; there are oyster shells at the dam site. There is a possibility that this site, especially the south end, might be a midden, since Eastsound Swale was once a waterway used by First Peoples. The tribes should know of this plan and what it might mean; they should be included in the discussion. There are federal laws to consider, as well as state and local laws. It's hard to believe the proposed plan is compliant with federal and state laws.
The county /public works has a hefty grant for building the facility - over $200,000 - but that may not go far enough once they get excavators and a lot of concrete and replanting involved. My guess is that there'd be no money left over for monitoring and cleaning the pond. Wouldn't that grant money be far better spent on a minimally invasive plan that's much less expensive and that would minimally infringe and leave the tree filtration vegetation that's there?I appreciate the efforts that have gone into this, and the sincerity of those who believe in this plan, but I think it's overkill in more ways than one.
Scientific data shows that wetland functionality is actually destroyed within 20 years by over-use of detention ponds and by removing natural buffer and tree-root filtration. Hopefully the replanted trees would grow to size in 20 years, but with added sun drying things up and changing water temps and encouraging noxious weeds, I'm not convinced. Most scientists in their wetland study data say that it's far better to leave a wetland untouched than to destroy it and build an artificial one. Even Dr. Adamus, the scientist who wrote the summary document for the CAO (who also wrote-off the Eastsound Swale as "low value habitat" on his map) says that it's always better to leave natural buffer vegetation in a wetland than remove it and build an artificial wetland. A wetland's health is essential to the health of our critical aquifer and to marine habitat, especially as Eastsound Swale affects marine habitat to the north (President's Channel) and the south (Fishing Bay.)
There are noxious weeds to consider. There's a whole field of reed canary grass west of the wetland that is infringing, and the east edge of the swale also has it. There is a large patch, around 30 x 30,' in the wetland. The roots are rhizomous and once sun hits that grass, its proliferation explodes like wildfire; it also reproduces by seed. If the trees are removed, the natural wetland soil would have to be removed and disposed of if there is canary grass rhizome in it. What a waste. Far more effective would be removal of the large inner patch with a small backhoe, then hand removal of any starts, combined with sheet mulching and arborist chips. There's the chance that excavators would spread this grass around from their tires; that's how horsetail roots get spread from site to site. There's some english blackberry in the swale that would also spread with sunlight, as it would then produce fruit and thousands of seeds as well as its aggressive deep roots. Excavators never seem to get all roots; they seem to spread noxious weeds, and then Canada thistle and bull thistle would come into the disturbed clear-cut land; who will maintain this from all these weeds on an ongoing basis?
What of the bird habitat; how much songbird habitat will be lost? How much of any possible amphibian habitat left? (most of the tree frog and salamander habitat was already destroyed by putting in Enchanted Forest Road.) What other small animal habitat that would be destroyed? The Eastsound Swale is likely a place where bats catch insects and keep the mosquito population down. Was any of this considered, and the increased insect problems when insect eaters lose habitat and nesting sites?
Rather than blow that grant money on a project that seems likely to destroy the wetland, it's time to stop, take stock of what we already have, do more study to make a better plan, and use the money we save from a less expensive plan for monitoring and stewardship.
The first thing that needs to happen is for the stormwater committee to interface with Amanda Azous and find out her thoughts and reasonings on the plan, find out if she also designed an alternative less invasive plan (and if not, why not?), discuss alternatives, and halt until we know how best to proceed.
This proposed treatment facility won't be able to handle Fern Street runoff and additional growth; that is already known. Adding more impervious surfaces with future development including roads - how much of this has been considered? in this plan? Where will the additional stormwater treatment facilities going to be if this parcel can't handle all that? Perhaps it's time to put a ban on any more impervious surfaces until we have some viable solutions to these questions. Eastsound was supposed to be a walking village, not a parking lot/road system, and our long range planners have failed in that objective.
True, pollutants are going into Fishing Bay at an alarming rate and something has to be done about stormwater; we all agree on that. But this plan is not the answer. We need to go back to the drawing board. And for those who write off Eastsound Swale and critical areas within the Urban Growth Area as negligible in value (except for development), saying it's "too late" and "nothing can be done," call them out on it because that is untrue. It's not too late for Eastsound Swale. It's NEVER too late to stop further damage and begin to mitigate past damage.
Ask yourselves, Eastsound and Orcas residents who know the value of functional wetlands and the legalities that protect them; ask yourselves, business owners, marine biologists and concerned environmentalists, and visitors: do you want to see all the natural tree vegetation behind Eastsound Village Green be leveled, noxious weeds take over (they already have a foothold and this will worsen if sun is allowed into that site), and a functioning wetland ruined? Please let your council members, EPRC, and Public Works know that this is not acceptable for your vision of Eastsound as a transitional, sustainable village as well as the hub of our island. There are better ways to plan for the Village needs, better ways to address stormwater. Written comments are always best.
The field trip / walk was far more instructive than looking at any paper plan, and it was much easier to see the reality of what is proposed and what exists now. Here we witnessed Eastsound Swale doing what a wetland is supposed to do; percolating and filtering water and flowing naturally. (except where the property was cleared and bermed for a dam at the south end of the lot; there was a drain put in and the water was flowing into that.)
It's hard to fathom how destroying a wetland's tree buffer filtration system, and then rebuilding an artificial wetland, could be the best possible option, or the only option. All the wetland vegetation and trees behind the bandshell would be bulldozed, destroying the natural flow and the remaining stream that exists. Then the land would be graded and dug and filled with topsoil and replanted with things that would take years to get to size. (One would hope that at least the wetland soil would be re-used, but see below - noxious weeds, so probably not.) There will be a patch of trees left intact at the southwest end of the parcel; if you count possible root damage from excavators as intact.
Two retaining ponds are planned, with a foot bridge and trail crossing the wetland east-west, plus a 60 foot long concrete 10' wide ramp for an excavator to maneuver down to the north pond and clean out the pollutant sediment. I don't know how the south pond would be cleaned. (Not sure what happens to that gunk or where it'll be dumped.) Then a fence, hopefully not cyclone, would be constructed around the ramp and north pond to keep people out; the trail and footbridge would go alongside the south side of this fence. This is what we'd look at as we look from the Village Green toward the bandshell and behind, so there are aesthetic considerations.
Taking down most of the trees would not only ruin their root filtration; grading for the detention ponds would finish the job. Add to this the effect of sun exposure - which would encourage the rapid spread of noxious weeds already taking hold. (see below). Some people are concerned about the hawthorn trees (east edge) as noxious weed trees. They tend to take an area quickly and are thorny; perhaps should be removed, but their roots are doing the job of filtering. The rest of the trees which include alders and a few crabapples should be protected (both are recommended wetland trees and indicative of wetlands), as well as any pines that would help slow stormwater runoff. Conifers are the best at filtration, absorbing 50% of rainwater with their roots and holding it there. In the higher elevation areas of the swale, there are a few pines that do the job nicely.
Another concern; there are oyster shells at the dam site. There is a possibility that this site, especially the south end, might be a midden, since Eastsound Swale was once a waterway used by First Peoples. The tribes should know of this plan and what it might mean; they should be included in the discussion. There are federal laws to consider, as well as state and local laws. It's hard to believe the proposed plan is compliant with federal and state laws.
The county /public works has a hefty grant for building the facility - over $200,000 - but that may not go far enough once they get excavators and a lot of concrete and replanting involved. My guess is that there'd be no money left over for monitoring and cleaning the pond. Wouldn't that grant money be far better spent on a minimally invasive plan that's much less expensive and that would minimally infringe and leave the tree filtration vegetation that's there?I appreciate the efforts that have gone into this, and the sincerity of those who believe in this plan, but I think it's overkill in more ways than one.
Scientific data shows that wetland functionality is actually destroyed within 20 years by over-use of detention ponds and by removing natural buffer and tree-root filtration. Hopefully the replanted trees would grow to size in 20 years, but with added sun drying things up and changing water temps and encouraging noxious weeds, I'm not convinced. Most scientists in their wetland study data say that it's far better to leave a wetland untouched than to destroy it and build an artificial one. Even Dr. Adamus, the scientist who wrote the summary document for the CAO (who also wrote-off the Eastsound Swale as "low value habitat" on his map) says that it's always better to leave natural buffer vegetation in a wetland than remove it and build an artificial wetland. A wetland's health is essential to the health of our critical aquifer and to marine habitat, especially as Eastsound Swale affects marine habitat to the north (President's Channel) and the south (Fishing Bay.)
There are noxious weeds to consider. There's a whole field of reed canary grass west of the wetland that is infringing, and the east edge of the swale also has it. There is a large patch, around 30 x 30,' in the wetland. The roots are rhizomous and once sun hits that grass, its proliferation explodes like wildfire; it also reproduces by seed. If the trees are removed, the natural wetland soil would have to be removed and disposed of if there is canary grass rhizome in it. What a waste. Far more effective would be removal of the large inner patch with a small backhoe, then hand removal of any starts, combined with sheet mulching and arborist chips. There's the chance that excavators would spread this grass around from their tires; that's how horsetail roots get spread from site to site. There's some english blackberry in the swale that would also spread with sunlight, as it would then produce fruit and thousands of seeds as well as its aggressive deep roots. Excavators never seem to get all roots; they seem to spread noxious weeds, and then Canada thistle and bull thistle would come into the disturbed clear-cut land; who will maintain this from all these weeds on an ongoing basis?
What of the bird habitat; how much songbird habitat will be lost? How much of any possible amphibian habitat left? (most of the tree frog and salamander habitat was already destroyed by putting in Enchanted Forest Road.) What other small animal habitat that would be destroyed? The Eastsound Swale is likely a place where bats catch insects and keep the mosquito population down. Was any of this considered, and the increased insect problems when insect eaters lose habitat and nesting sites?
Rather than blow that grant money on a project that seems likely to destroy the wetland, it's time to stop, take stock of what we already have, do more study to make a better plan, and use the money we save from a less expensive plan for monitoring and stewardship.
The first thing that needs to happen is for the stormwater committee to interface with Amanda Azous and find out her thoughts and reasonings on the plan, find out if she also designed an alternative less invasive plan (and if not, why not?), discuss alternatives, and halt until we know how best to proceed.
This proposed treatment facility won't be able to handle Fern Street runoff and additional growth; that is already known. Adding more impervious surfaces with future development including roads - how much of this has been considered? in this plan? Where will the additional stormwater treatment facilities going to be if this parcel can't handle all that? Perhaps it's time to put a ban on any more impervious surfaces until we have some viable solutions to these questions. Eastsound was supposed to be a walking village, not a parking lot/road system, and our long range planners have failed in that objective.
True, pollutants are going into Fishing Bay at an alarming rate and something has to be done about stormwater; we all agree on that. But this plan is not the answer. We need to go back to the drawing board. And for those who write off Eastsound Swale and critical areas within the Urban Growth Area as negligible in value (except for development), saying it's "too late" and "nothing can be done," call them out on it because that is untrue. It's not too late for Eastsound Swale. It's NEVER too late to stop further damage and begin to mitigate past damage.
Ask yourselves, Eastsound and Orcas residents who know the value of functional wetlands and the legalities that protect them; ask yourselves, business owners, marine biologists and concerned environmentalists, and visitors: do you want to see all the natural tree vegetation behind Eastsound Village Green be leveled, noxious weeds take over (they already have a foothold and this will worsen if sun is allowed into that site), and a functioning wetland ruined? Please let your council members, EPRC, and Public Works know that this is not acceptable for your vision of Eastsound as a transitional, sustainable village as well as the hub of our island. There are better ways to plan for the Village needs, better ways to address stormwater. Written comments are always best.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Time Is Running Out to Comment on the Habitat Analysis Map and ALL of the "Best Available Science" documents used to determine how the Critical Areas Ordinance is written
NOTICE: This affects all of San Juan County. The best available science comments are being collected by Community Development and Planning. The county will decide what to use in order to write the Critical Areas Ordinance. They are taking public comment, suggestions, concerns ONLY until Friday, Feb. 4 cutoff date. Be sure your comments are in BEFORE Friday. Thanks!
Please submit all written/electronic comments to:
JaniceB@sanjuanco.com
There are CAO meetings Feb. 8 and 9 in Friday Harbor. See county website.
Thanks to WSU Beach Watchers, who posted a link to San Juan County's pages of Critical Areas Ordinance Best Available Science in their latest newsletter, or I never would have found Dr. Adamus's Habitat Analysis Map of 2009 in the wetlands section that raised some alarms, and generated a phone call to someone who knew that the planning department was taking comments on it. Does this mean they intend to use this map for "best available science?" Does this mean that the Conservancy Overlay district that now protects Eastsound Swale can be overturned? I hope not. You can find Beach Watchers here
Anyone who thinks that the Eastsound Swale, madrona forests, tree windbreaks, natural vegetation and wildlife habitat should be the CORE around which planning and development in the Eastsound UGA should be based, please make your comments to the planning department before Friday, Feb. 4th. It wouldn't hurt to also send written comments to the EPRC. The County Council and EPRC need to hear from scientists, conservationists, and environmentalists for a more balanced and equitable view of the big picture. Since all the islands are shown on the map, anyone on any other island who cares about habitats, please flood the planning department with your comments and read some of the myriad documents that may affect future planning in the San Juans.
On the habitat map, Eastsound Swale, supposedly protected in the Conservancy Overlay District, is colored in purple and dark purple. Its designation? "Low Value Habitat." I strongly disagree. I think it's essential habitat for the health of Eastsound's sensitive aquifers, ground water, and ultimately, Fishing Bay and President's Channel, and there IS science to back up the fact that functional wetlands and forests do much for the health of the land and ground water. If we let this map stand as the yardstick for the Critical Areas Ordinance, unplanned or poorly planned development is going to continue to trump good planning, especially in higher density and UGA areas where the only value assigned to land is dollar profit value. (and UGAs are particularly under-valued because saving habitat directly conflicts with developers' and speculative land buyers' profits.)
I don't want to see the Eastsound Swale, a category 2 regulated wetland, become the toxic waste dump of Orcas Island. If we leave the wetland as a "low value" habitat, a concrete stormwater treatment facility designed by an off-island engineer who knows nothing about the swale is exactly what we'll get. As well meaning as Public Works is, we need designers who know the terrain, what the Swale used to be like, and how we could move it in that direction again. We are at a crossroads. Once we go that direction, we can't go back, so make your opinions known. Please pass this on to anyone who might want to know. If you have facebook or twitter, please post something there and get your friends to commit to making comments before the deadline. Thanks.
With a little patience and these instructions, you can view the the map. I suggest you open the page in a new tab so you can follow these instructions and save time and energy.
Start with this page.
~Check the box that says "I agree to these terms." Click "proceed."You should be taken to a page with some links.Click on the bottom link which says
"Wetland BAS and Guidance."
~You will be taken to a page with tons of documents! Scroll down to "h" and look for "Habitat Analysis Map" (PDF). Open it and you can zoom in. You can also save a copy to your computer to email as an attachment to concerned people you know. Feel free to cut and paste this text or use your own words.
Please remember to get the word out quickly. Please make your email comments to the Planning Department and the county council before Friday, Feb. 4. Thanks very much!
Please submit all written/electronic comments to:
JaniceB@sanjuanco.com
There are CAO meetings Feb. 8 and 9 in Friday Harbor. See county website.
Thanks to WSU Beach Watchers, who posted a link to San Juan County's pages of Critical Areas Ordinance Best Available Science in their latest newsletter, or I never would have found Dr. Adamus's Habitat Analysis Map of 2009 in the wetlands section that raised some alarms, and generated a phone call to someone who knew that the planning department was taking comments on it. Does this mean they intend to use this map for "best available science?" Does this mean that the Conservancy Overlay district that now protects Eastsound Swale can be overturned? I hope not. You can find Beach Watchers here
Anyone who thinks that the Eastsound Swale, madrona forests, tree windbreaks, natural vegetation and wildlife habitat should be the CORE around which planning and development in the Eastsound UGA should be based, please make your comments to the planning department before Friday, Feb. 4th. It wouldn't hurt to also send written comments to the EPRC. The County Council and EPRC need to hear from scientists, conservationists, and environmentalists for a more balanced and equitable view of the big picture. Since all the islands are shown on the map, anyone on any other island who cares about habitats, please flood the planning department with your comments and read some of the myriad documents that may affect future planning in the San Juans.
On the habitat map, Eastsound Swale, supposedly protected in the Conservancy Overlay District, is colored in purple and dark purple. Its designation? "Low Value Habitat." I strongly disagree. I think it's essential habitat for the health of Eastsound's sensitive aquifers, ground water, and ultimately, Fishing Bay and President's Channel, and there IS science to back up the fact that functional wetlands and forests do much for the health of the land and ground water. If we let this map stand as the yardstick for the Critical Areas Ordinance, unplanned or poorly planned development is going to continue to trump good planning, especially in higher density and UGA areas where the only value assigned to land is dollar profit value. (and UGAs are particularly under-valued because saving habitat directly conflicts with developers' and speculative land buyers' profits.)
I don't want to see the Eastsound Swale, a category 2 regulated wetland, become the toxic waste dump of Orcas Island. If we leave the wetland as a "low value" habitat, a concrete stormwater treatment facility designed by an off-island engineer who knows nothing about the swale is exactly what we'll get. As well meaning as Public Works is, we need designers who know the terrain, what the Swale used to be like, and how we could move it in that direction again. We are at a crossroads. Once we go that direction, we can't go back, so make your opinions known. Please pass this on to anyone who might want to know. If you have facebook or twitter, please post something there and get your friends to commit to making comments before the deadline. Thanks.
With a little patience and these instructions, you can view the the map. I suggest you open the page in a new tab so you can follow these instructions and save time and energy.
Start with this page.
~Check the box that says "I agree to these terms." Click "proceed."You should be taken to a page with some links.Click on the bottom link which says
"Wetland BAS and Guidance."
~You will be taken to a page with tons of documents! Scroll down to "h" and look for "Habitat Analysis Map" (PDF). Open it and you can zoom in. You can also save a copy to your computer to email as an attachment to concerned people you know. Feel free to cut and paste this text or use your own words.
Please remember to get the word out quickly. Please make your email comments to the Planning Department and the county council before Friday, Feb. 4. Thanks very much!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)